C0untZer0 Posted June 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM I re-read amendment 5 and it says "Firearm" singular... If this has been talked about before, I'm sorry, but some of the threads on 183 got so so long I couldn't read through all of them.
TTIN Posted June 18, 2013 at 06:56 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 06:56 PM I read nothing to indicate the number of weapons,but then again,I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
handyflyer Posted June 18, 2013 at 07:23 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 07:23 PM I saw nothing on number of firearms either.
kevinmcc Posted June 18, 2013 at 07:54 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 07:54 PM There is no specific number you can not carry. This was debates on the floor, some representatives asked how may firearms law enforcement were allowed to carry. The misinformed representative thought law enforcement officers could only carry one firearm and that other citizens should be limited to one firearm as well.
blazzinbird Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:31 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:31 PM Why do you need more than 1? You trying to make up for a lack of something? Lol
bob Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:34 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:34 PM it does use the singular in a least a few places. I don't know if that is meaningful or not.
handyflyer Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM A wise man said " two is one and one is none."
jlowrie Posted June 19, 2013 at 05:06 AM Posted June 19, 2013 at 05:06 AM I just though he wanted to do it to tick off Arroyo.
Mr. Fife Posted June 19, 2013 at 05:35 AM Posted June 19, 2013 at 05:35 AM If you carry one firearm, and then you carry one more firearm, I don't see a problem unless you try to redefine the meaning of firearm. I'm not a lawyer but if I was I think I'd be pretty good at it, lol.
bob Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM It has occurred to me that the meat of the bill is the issuance of a license that permits the licensee to carry a firearm. The bill does not use the term "firearms". It specifically uses the singular term "firearm". I would not want to be the test case on this one either. No doubt there will be a test case. The problem is that if the court finds that he is not within the confines of what the license grants him permission to do, he is not covered by the license and the charge would be AgUUW. There is another interesting angle to this that occurred to me as well. The license permits the licensee to carry a concealed handgun loaded or unloaded. Is an unloaded handgun in a case concealed? If so it would be covered by the license. So does this mean you can't carry a loaded gun in your pocket under the terms of the license while you have an unloaded and encased handgun on you as well?
C0untZer0 Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM Author Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM I think an unloaded handgun in a case is transporting a firearm.
lockman Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:42 AM Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:42 AM If the word "firearm" were replaced with "firearms", would you be required to carry more than one? I believe there would be a legal distinction only if both were specifically referenced, "firearm(s)" or "firearm or firearms".
BobPistol Posted June 19, 2013 at 01:56 PM Posted June 19, 2013 at 01:56 PM Why do you need more than 1? You trying to make up for a lack of something? Of course! A lack of armed cops who show up in 10 seconds
bob Posted June 20, 2013 at 12:23 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 12:23 AM If the word "firearm" were replaced with "firearms", would you be required to carry more than one? I believe there would be a legal distinction only if both were specifically referenced, "firearm(s)" or "firearm or firearms". The thing is it is ambiguous and if it ever becomes law someone will get jacked up by it until the courts decide what it means. just like dozens of other provisions of this abomination.
joybulb Posted June 20, 2013 at 02:38 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 02:38 AM Ambiguity is king in Illinois, I would stick with 1 firearm if the bill ever goes into effect.
03rev Posted June 20, 2013 at 02:42 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 02:42 AM Im still trying to figure out why anyone would want to carry more than one. Tomorrow I'll go over to davenport and try it out just so I can see what its all about. Dual 1911's
vezpa Posted June 20, 2013 at 03:31 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 03:31 AM The person who gets arrested legally carrying 2 guns on their ccw license is going to get paid.......... like Lottery PAID. .
dorvinion Posted June 20, 2013 at 03:39 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 03:39 AM That which is not prohibited is permitted. I don't recall seeing it stated anywhere "a licensee shall not carry more than one concealed handgun on or about his person"
GlockShooter Posted June 20, 2013 at 04:08 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 04:08 AM That which is not prohibited is permitted. I don't recall seeing it stated anywhere "a licensee shall not carry more than one concealed handgun on or about his person"This man speaks the truth. I haven't read anything stating a BUG is not allowed.
bob Posted June 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM That which is not prohibited is permitted. I don't recall seeing it stated anywhere "a licensee shall not carry more than one concealed handgun on or about his person" It does not work that way when being granted a license. Keep in mind what you are doing (carrying a concealed handgun) is basically illegal unless you are doing so within the bounds of the license that was granted. I think chances are a court would at last eventually decide the law can't possibly mean you can only carry a single handgun, but I don't want to be the test case.
lockman Posted June 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM Posted June 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM One on your hip and one in your center console would also be carrying two. As far as enforcement under UUW, I believe you would be covered as the carry act is silent as to any penalty for multiple firearm carry and as a licensee you are exempt from UUW carrying within the parameters within the act. As for why carry two? Symmetry?Because two is the most that will fit comfortably on my belt with the ammo pouches, phone knife and flashlight.
Drylok Posted June 20, 2013 at 05:37 PM Posted June 20, 2013 at 05:37 PM One on your hip and one in your center console would also be carrying two. As far as enforcement under UUW, I believe you would be covered as the carry act is silent as to any penalty for multiple firearm carry and as a licensee you are exempt from UUW carrying within the parameters within the act. As for why carry two? Symmetry?Because two is the most that will fit comfortably on my belt with the ammo pouches, phone knife and flashlight. Wouldn't that be carrying one and transporting one?
scough Posted June 20, 2013 at 06:37 PM Posted June 20, 2013 at 06:37 PM Precisely that. We missed opportunities to get a better deal because our side insisted on being able to carry as many weapons as physically possible. I clearly rememeber watching that exchange on the floor. That and the peekaboo attempt of sliding through open carry, which forced a gag order here, did nothing but turn off those on the fence and other side. Imho, between trying to be slick on those and a few more, and the early on confrontational behavior and the ramming down the thoats attitude, we pretty much got what we deserved and are going to pay for that nonsense.
Rail Posted June 20, 2013 at 09:56 PM Posted June 20, 2013 at 09:56 PM Only one state I'm aware of specifically limits you to carrying 1 concealed loaded handgun: New Mexico. Some states require you to only carry specific handguns you qualify with (California, Nevada, New York, maybe others).
Indigo Posted June 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM Posted June 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM Im still trying to figure out why anyone would want to carry more than one. Tomorrow I'll go over to davenport and try it out just so I can see what its all about. Dual 1911's That's a New York reload! 7 rounds, each gun!
Tvandermyde Posted June 21, 2013 at 01:03 PM Posted June 21, 2013 at 01:03 PM Precisely that. We missed opportunities to get a better deal because our side insisted on being able to carry as many weapons as physically possible. I clearly rememeber watching that exchange on the floor. That and the peekaboo attempt of sliding through open carry, which forced a gag order here, did nothing but turn off those on the fence and other side. Imho, between trying to be slick on those and a few more, and the early on confrontational behavior and the ramming down the thoats attitude, we pretty much got what we deserved and are going to pay for that nonsense. You're wrong. While there were things in the bill we attempted to obtain, most of those were not impediments to making more progress on the issue. if anything, they helped us obtain some of the things we got. Lots of people on our side of the issue want to dissect a bill as if it were a debate between 45 acp and 9mm. the resulting conversations only serve to educate anti-gunners who know nothing about guns and how most of this works in the real world. look at the Colorado mag ban language that went after most shotguns. there is a time to debate provisions of bills and there is a time NOT to educate our opponents. I will maintain that the SBR bill came about because of NOT shining a light on it. As an example
scough Posted June 21, 2013 at 02:49 PM Posted June 21, 2013 at 02:49 PM Scratch that. A PM would be more appropriate.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.